John D. Rainey is subject to Judicial Council’s investigation for violating Rule 52(a) (1) & 58(a) & CANON 3 (A)(1)(4) &(5)!

Rainey also violated the Crime Victims Rights Act. See the paragraph on Crime Victims Rights Act below.

Rainey replaced the jury as a fact finder without finding any fact about the degree of Citgo’s reprehensibility and the appropriate amount the victims are owed. The jury convicted Citgo of criminal and civil violations of the Clean Air Act seven years ago. Rainey, as a fact finder, unduly delayed the sentencing until February 2014, and failed to perform factual findings on Citgo’s degree of reprehensibility, which would entitle the victims to both compensatory and punitive damages. Even if the compensatory damages are nominal, the punitive damages would be substantial in view of the degree of Citgo’s reprehensibility. It is groundless and irresponsible to state that the jury would “unduly delay the sentencing process,” and the need for a speedy ruling “outweighs the need to provide restitution to any victims.” It is a reversible error to draw conclusions of law in denying the victims any restitution without any findings of fact after seven long years’ delay.

Furthermore, Rainey’s letter addressing the issue of restitution was in violation of Rule 52(a) (1) & 58(a) Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule.

Rule 52(a) (1) In General. In an action tried on the facts without a jury or with an advisory jury, the court must find the facts specially and state its conclusions of law separately. The findings and conclusions may be stated on the record after the close of the evidence or may appear in an opinion or a memorandum of decision filed by the court. Judgment must be entered under Rule 58.

Rule 58(a) provides in pertinent part: Every judgment and amended judgment must be set out in a separate document.

Rainey’s 4/30/2014 letter did not find the special facts about the degree of Citgo’s reprehensibility and the appropriate amount of restitution Citgo’s victims were owed. It merely stated its purported conclusions of law that having a jury panel figure out an appropriate dollar amount would “unduly delay the sentencing process,” and that the need for a speedy ruling “outweighs the need to provide restitution to any victims” without any findings of fact.

Rainey’s seven long years’ delayed ruling certainly violated CANON 3 (A)(5), which provides: “A judge should dispose promptly of the business of the court.”

Rainey’s lack of factual findings also violated CANON 3 (A)(1) & (4): (1) A judge should be faithful to, and maintain professional competence in, the law and should not be swayed by partisan interests, public clamor, or fear of criticism. (4) A judge should accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, and that person’s lawyer, the full right to be heard according to law.

Rainey’s violations of Rule 52(a) (1) & 58(a) make the letter VOID ab initio. His violations of CANON 3 (A)(1)(4) & (5) subject him to the investigation of JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. Rule 3.1 Judicial Conduct and Disability Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 351–364 authorizes complaints against United States circuit, district, bankruptcy, and magistrate judges who have “engaged in conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of business of the courts.”

Based on the grounds stated above, I suggest that Plaintiffs’ attorneys and those of DOJ and EPA file an appeal, or, if too late, file a PETITION FOR MANDAMUS to vacate Rainey’s VOID Orders/Judgments. See PREPARE TO FILE A PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS WITHOUT A LAWYER posted on July 16, 2014.

I’m guilty; I admit violating Rule 52(a)(1), 58(a); CANON 3 (A)(1)(4) & (5)!

Additionally, on April 30, 2014, you violated the Crime Victims Rights Act, by depriving the 800 eligible crime victims of the restitution they deserved, and by unduly delaying rendering your VOID Order for seven years after the jury’s guilty verdict in June 2007. Why did you have to torture them by forcing them to submit voluminous legal papers, testify under oath,  and  nervously wait for nothing for seven long years? Why did you stage impressive performances in the courtroom by getting the prosecutors, the victim specialists and the federal and state investigators to testify to pacify the victims at the expense of taxpayers’ money?

I bet all your court hearings were merely a façade, a deceptive appearance. You hid your evil intent behind a false front of legality.

“Texas state investigators testified at the trial that they traced emissions that caused burning eyes, sore throat, difficulty breathing and other acute health effects back to the tanks on several occasions. The emissions from the tanks were detected in Oak Park and Hillcrest in the form of strong gaseous type odors.” “CITGO’s illegal and careless operation of two massive tanks without emission controls exposed residents – the company’s neighbors – in the Oak Park and Hillcrest communities of Corpus Christi to unacceptable health impacts from toxic chemical emissions,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Robert G. Dreher of the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division. “I am grateful to the prosecutors, the victim specialists and the federal and state investigators for fighting tirelessly for justice for these residents who deserve to breathe clean air and to be protected under the nation’s Clean Air Act.”

“Citgo executives have known since 2012 what the maximum sentence would be.” See Citgo’s petty cash drawer must be hurting after judge …. This is ex parte communication forbidden by law. That was exactly why Judge Skipper Koetter was publicly admonished. See 1) JUDGE JUERGEN (SKIPPER) KOETTER: My readers were wrong! So was I! Posted on July 15, 2014; 2) Victoria Advocate | Judicial conduct board reprimands judge; 3) PUBLIC ADMONITION of HONORABLE JUERGEN (SKIPPER) KOETTER; 4) “Skipper” Koetter.

Exodus 23:8: GOD’S WORD® Translation
Never take a bribe, because bribes blind those who can see and deny justice to those who are in the right.

There must have been bribery involved in this $2 billion robbery hidden in the courtroom drama. If you have any inside information on BRIBERY and CORRUPTION, illegal bribes or illegal kickbacks in particular, please don’t hesitate to take advantage of the Whistleblower Reward. You have the potential of collecting 10% to 30% of the monetary sanctions including disgorged funds. For further information, please visit International Illegal Bribery Schemes and International Whistleblower Reward Information   Posted on January 30, 2013; Olympus Has Fallen: The Whistleblower Strikes Back — This article introduces: Whistleblower Security, a 24/7 whistleblower hotline, and a complimentary copy of eBook for downloading.

Why did you keep the crime victims in the dark, John?

 

Your seven months’ YEARS’ delay in sentencing the criminal corporation, Citgo, and your denial of restitution owed to the crime victims constituted a mockery of justice, the dishonorable John D. Rainey!

 

Mr. Rainey: For seven years, we waited for the restitution promised by the Crime Victims Rights Act.

You have been performing shell game scam with cups and we all ended up losing everything!

We’re tired of your broken promises!

We want facts!                                    We want jurors to find facts!

 

Tell us the truth!   No more lies!   We want facts!

 

 

 

Stop fraud!                                   Stop fraud!

 

 

 

 

 

Luke 12:2 There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known.

Psalm 101:  A deceitful person will not sit in my house; a liar will not remain in my presence.

 

TO BE CONTINUED.

Paul Chen

Rainey usurped jury’s role! Citgo’s behavior is as reprehensible as that of Actos maker!

Actos Lawsuit Results in Landmark $9 Billion Punitive Damages Verdict!

Comparing these two cases, you will see how callous, arbitrary, and unreasonable Rainey’s denial of restitution to the crime victims is!

Can you imagine for the same crime the migratory birds are awarded $45,000 and the 800 victims’ loss of health, lives and property values are worth $0?

Court records show that Citgo became the subject of a criminal environmental investigation by the Department of Justice and the federal grand jury in early 2003. A Texas jury found the company guilty in June 2007 of knowingly allowing the cancer-causing-carcinogen benzene, as well as other toxic fumes, into the air in the city of Corpus Christi, Texas, for about a decade.

 

David Wilma, the former EPA criminal investigator, said that the typical corporate case takes between two to three-and-a-half years, compared to two months for small businesses.

On April 14, 2011, Rainey granted Citgo’s motions to strike certain victims’ testimonies taken from nearby residents and environmental officials as part of the pre-sentencing process.

Almost four years after the June 2007 jury conviction of Citgo for both civil and criminal violations of the Clean Air Act, residents of the Refinery Row communities of Dona Park, Hillcrest and Oak Park, together with local environmental groups, in January 2011, drafted a petition calling on Rainey either to sentence the company or say publicly why the process was taking so long. However, Rainey did not take any action until February 2014.

For 10 years, from the 1994 to 2003, the victimized Citgo neighbors were breathing toxic chemicals like the cancer-causing benzene. The DOJ and EPA wanted Citgo to pay the maximum $2 billion in fines, including $30 million for relocation, medical expenses, and restitution for the 800+ victims, similar to the $20 billion fund that BP set aside in 2010 for the victims of its massive spill. However, Rainey fined the company $2 million, and another $45,000 for harming the migratory birds.

Then, on April 30, 2014, afraid of facing the victims, Rainey rendered his order in writing instead of announcing it in open court.  Against his conscience, he awarded them nothing. He could and should have had a jury panel figure out an appropriate dollar amount. Instead, he arbitrarily ruled that doing so would “unduly delay the sentencing process.” The need for a speedy ruling “outweighs the need to provide restitution to any victims,” he wrote. Speedy ruling? Is seven years’ delay a “speedy ruling?” Seven long years’ ruling certainly violated CANON 3 (A)(5), which provides: “A judge should dispose promptly of the business of the court.” The synonyms for promptly are: expeditiously, hastily, instantly, quickly, rapidly, speedily, swiftly, pronto, at once. Do you know the meanings of speedy and promptly?   In contrast, the Actos case took more than 12 weeks of trial, and a Louisiana jury a few hours to return a verdict, awarding $1.5 million in compensatory damages and an additional $9 billion in punitive damages for the plaintiffs. In Citgo’s case, Rainey’s seven years’ delay is unforgivable, not to mention usurping the jury right or duty to award compensatory damages for the actual harms done to the victims and punitive damages to deter Citgo and other environmental violators.

I accuse Citgo of behaving as reprehensibly as the makers of Actos in that they both knowingly violated the relevant laws.

“The makers of the diabetes drug Actos withheld information from consumers and the medical community about the risk of users developing bladder cancer. They actively tried to hide the drug’s links to bladder cancer and successfully did so for several years. The drug makers tried to keep the public unaware.”

“Citgo learned within months after the two tanks went into operation that the upstream oil water separators did not work.” “Citgo’s neighboring residents were exposed to harmful chemicals from Citgo’s Corpus Christi, Texas, refinery from 1994 to 2003.”

Compared with the jury verdict of Actos, awarding $1.5 million compensatory damages and $9 billion punitive damages to the victims,  Rainey was erroneous in stating that the requirement to pay a penalty in excess of the maximum fine is illegal, impermissible.  

Though more than 800 of the neighboring residents had been classified as crime victims, eligible for financial reward under the Crime Victims Rights Act, after seven years’ waiting, Rainey’s April 30, 2014 ruling deprived them of any restitution they deserved. 

Do you call your denial of their legitimate rights legal, permissible, Mr. Rainey?

A proposed $44 million contribution to seven community service projects set as a condition of probation for the companies was ruled impermissible by Rainey because it exceeded the statutory maximum fine of $2.09 million. What about punitive damages to deter future violations?

“CITGO learned within months after the two tanks went into operation that the upstream oil water separators did not work.”  “Citgo knowingly disregarded safety. Consequently, the tanks emitted benzene, a known cancer-causing carcinogen, into the air, at the serious health risk of the poor residents, who cannot afford to move or hire an attorney to fight fore their rights.

Isaiah 1:17 New Living Translation: Learn to do good. Seek justice. Help the oppressed. Defend the cause of orphans. Fight for the rights of widows.

**************************************************************************

I have no health insurance!

I expected to have paid $200,000 owed the hospital

out of Citgo’s restitution!

                                                                          My dad died of colon cancer

                                                                          because of Citgo’s air pollution, 

                                                                          do you know?   

           Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.

William Butler Yeats

I am falling deeper in debt, doc!

Without restitution, how can I collect medical expenses and lost wages?

 

Actos Lawsuit Results in Landmark $9 Billion Punitive …

www.aboutlawsuits.com/actos-lawsuit-landmark-punitive–damage-verdic…

by Austin Kirk – Apr 8, 2014 – A Louisiana jury has handed down a landmark $9 billion Actos bladder … $1.5 million in compensatory damages and an additional $9 billion in … by Actos and that the company did due dillegence in providing bladder cancer warnings. … after the jury determined that both Actos and the plaintiff’s history as a …

Following more than 12 weeks of trial, it took a Louisiana jury only a few hours to return a verdict in the first federal case involving the development of bladder cancer from side effects of Actos, awarding $1.5 million in compensatory damages and an additional $9 billion in punitive damages against Takeda Pharmaceuticals and Eli Lilly.

The landmark jury award, which may be the largest ever in a pharmaceutical product liability lawsuit, came in a case brought by Terrance Allen, who alleged that the makers of the diabetes drug Actos withheld information from consumers and the medical community about the risk of users developing bladder cancer.

Testimony and evidence was presented during the trial that suggested that Takeda Pharmaceuticals actively tried to hide the drug’s links to bladder cancer and successfully did so for several years. The trial included internal memos and communications, as well as scientific studies that Allen’s attorneys argued the drug maker tried to keep the public unaware.

Plaintiffs Awarded $9 Billion in Punitive Damages in Actos Litigation …

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2014/08/prweb12066744.htm

4 days ago … Plaintiffs Awarded $9 Billion in Punitive Damages in Actos Litigation Argue Settlement is Fair, Parker Waichman LLP Comments.

The jury in the Actos bellwether trial found for the plaintiffs indicating that the plaintiffs were due $1.5 million in compensatory damages and $9 billion in punitive damages. The plaintiffs have also indicated that said there is a significant amount of evidence supporting the jury’s finding of inexcusable behavior, which included Takeda’s not complying with a 2002 litigation hold to preserve evidence, wrote the National Law Journal. The judge found that Takeda acted in bad faith by destroying evidence that revealed it was aware of Actos’ potential health risks.

Plaintiffs: $9B Verdict Against Drugmakers is Fair | National …

http://www.nationallawjournal.com/…/Plaintiffs-9B-Verdict–Against–Drugmake…

Jul 28, 2014 – Plaintiffs who won $9 billion in punitive damages in the first federal bellwether trial over diabetes drug Actos said the verdict should be upheld …

 

The plaintiffs said there is much evidence to support the jury’s finding of reprehensible behavior, and that deterrence of future bad behavior should warrant upholding the award.

 

**************************************************************************

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks to Citgo and Rainey, we are now homeless!

 

TO BE CONTINUED.

Paul Chen

A corrupt judge named John D. Rainey made a shameful court decision in Texas!

The judge is found guilty when a criminal is acquitted. — Publilius Syrus

A criminal trial is never about seeking justice for the victim. If it were, there could be only one verdict: guilty. — Alan Dershowitz

Where did the $55 million to which the crime victims were entitled go?

How much did it go into your pockets and offshore bank accounts, the disHonorable John D. Rainey?

 

  

The criminals and the judge that set them free are all guilty of crimes!

 I am not guilty; I only did it for Citgo!   Neither am I! I did it for Citgo, too!

A shameful court decision in Texas shows why we need to see pollution for what it is: violence, usually against poor and vulnerable people.

Pollution Is a Violent CrimeHYPERLINK “http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/08/environmental-racism-is-real-and-this-judgment-proves-it.html”—HYPERLINK “http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/08/environmental-racism-is-real-and-this-judgment-proves-it.html”Prosecute It as SuchHYPERLINK “http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/08/environmental-racism-is-real-and-this-judgment-proves-it.html” – The …

www.thedailybeast.com/…/environmental-racism-is-real-…

The corporation doesn’t have to pay compensation for pollution it caused in Texas. But pollution is a violent crime—and should be prosecuted as such.

A shameful court decision in Texas shows why we need to see pollution for what it is: violence, usually against poor and vulnerable people.

The situation is Erin Brockovich stuff. A Citgo refinery bordering Corpus Christi’s poor, largely minority Hillcrest neighborhood was illegally allowing benzene and other pollutants to escape its tanks. A jury found it guilty, not just civilly, but criminally. This unusually severe judgment was the first criminal conviction of a refinery operation under the Clean Air Act. With the support of the Justice Department, the victims sought what victims of ordinary crime expect when possible: restitution from the wrongdoer to make them whole.

U.S. District Judge John D. Rainey decided Wednesday that victims of Citgo’s criminal—literally criminal—pollution will receive no restitution. Citgo won’t have to pay any of the $55 million that the Justice Department had requested.

Now that the court order has denied us any restitution, how are we going to pay these medical and prescription drug bills?

Thanks to Judge Rainey, I was evicted!

And I am sick and homeless now!

 

We are all victims of air pollution and injustice! Who can help us?

“I play to win and if it looks like I’ve lost, it’s only because it’s not over yet.” ― Kiera Dellacroix, Engravings of Wraith

I urge the victims’ attorneys, friends, and relatives to keep fighting until Rainey’s lawless, malicious VOID Order/Judgment is reversed and the $55 million restitution imposed so that payments may be made to the innocent, ill-fated, poverty-stricken, disadvantaged victims for the harms caused.

TO BE CONTINUED.

Paul Chen

 

John D. Rainey: Did you have any financial interest, however small, in the Citgo proceeding?

A huge injustice: Victims of a massive corporate crime in Texas had to wait seven long years to hear how much restitution they’d be paid. When the verdict was announced in late April, it was not what they expected: $0. 

* Keeping the crime victims waiting for seven long years is itself in violation of Canon 3A(5). Let’s probe into this corrupt judge’s wrongdoings to disqualify him, and have his VOID Orders/Judgments vacated retroactively.

Canon 3A(5). In disposing of matters promptly, efficiently, and fairly, a judge must demonstrate due regard for the rights of the parties to be heard and to have issues resolved without unnecessary cost or delay. A judge should monitor and supervise cases to reduce or eliminate dilatory practices, avoidable delays, and unnecessary costs.

Thanks to your procrastination, Judge Rainey is accused of unnecessary delay!It was you who helped his honor betray the trust of the poor Citgo victims!

Mr. Rainey: In disposing of matters lazily, slowly, inefficiently, and unfairly, you demonstrated undue regard for the rights of the parties to be heard and you had issues resolved with unnecessary cost and delay. You should have monitored and supervised cases to reduce or eliminate dilatory practices, avoidable delays, and unnecessary costs, but you didn’t. Sleeping on my two TRO Motions for 11.5 months and the Citgo case for 7 long years, you showed favoritism, partiality for the defendants, but bias, prejudice, and discrimination against the victimized plaintiffs.

Prompt disposition of the court’s business requires a judge to devote adequate time to judicial duties, to be punctual in attending court and expeditious in determining matters under submission, and to take reasonable measures to ensure that court personnel, litigants, and their lawyers cooperate with the judge to that end.

Canon 3 requires disqualification of a judge in any proceeding in which the judge has a financial interest, however small.

18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(1)(A), which prohibits giving “anything of value” to a present, past, or future public official “for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such public official.”

This is just a little down payment.

Upon signing the final judgment, your honor will get a box filled with 100-dollar packs plus wire transfers as promised.

International Illegal Bribery Schemes and International Whistleblower Reward Information Posted on January 30, 2013 by ricofraudonthecourt Click this link, if you have inside information on BRIBERY and CORRUPTION; don’t hesitate to take advantage of the Whistleblower Reward; Olympus Has Fallen: The Whistleblower Strikes Back — This article introduces: Whistleblower Security, a 24/7 whistleblower hotline, and a complimentary copy of eBook for downloading.

A Huge Corporation Just Got Away With Murder — And It …

mic.com/…/a-huge-corporation-just-got-away-with-murder-and-it-sets-a-…

I think as long as you’re not being malicious and you’re not hurting people, then you should not be ashamed of what you do. — Lily Allen

Mr. Rainey: I accuse you of helping the murderers by depriving the victims of the restitution they are entitled to! You’re malicious and you’re hurting the helpless people. You should be ashamed of what you do!

When somebody challenges you, fight back. Be brutal, be tough. — Donald Trump

Mr. Rainey: I have been challenging you here for two years! Why haven’t you fought back? You are neither brutal nor tough to me but to the helpless Citgo victims, you are wickedly, unforgivably, reprehensibly brutal and tough!

I’m tired of malicious articles slandering me. — Barbra Streisand

Aren’t you tired of my articles accusing you of so many crimes you committed?

The Code of Conduct for United States Judges The Code of Conduct for United States Judges For a more complete Code, please click the above link. 

Please go over the following excerpts to examine this corrupt judge’s past and present judicial and non-judicial acts that are in contravention of The Code of Conduct for United States Judges. I may have omitted some parts of the Code applicable to your circumstances, but these are what I am going to elaborate based on my personal experiences as a result of his violations of the Code.

CANON 3: A JUDGE SHOULD PERFORM THE DUTIES OF THE OFFICE FAIRLY, IMPARTIALLY AND DILIGENTLY

Can 11.6 months’ waiting for two TRO Motions, 7 years for CITGO’s sentencing,  and depriving the crime victims of any restitution they deserve look FAIR, IMPARTIAL AND DILIGENT? To the criminals, maybe!

The duties of judicial office take precedence over all other activities. In performing the duties prescribed by law, the judge should adhere to the following standards:

(A) Adjudicative Responsibilities.

(1) A judge should be faithful to, and maintain professional competence in, the law and should not be swayed by partisan interests, public clamor, or fear of criticism.

You are neither faithful to, nor professionally competent in, the law , Mr. Rainey!

(2) A judge should hear and decide matters assigned, unless disqualified, and should maintain order and decorum in all judicial proceedings.

Sleeping on my two TRO Motions for 11.6 months, and CITGO’s sentencing for 7 years, you failed to promptly perform your official duty to hear and decide matters assigned, and violated CANON 3 (A)(5).

(3) A judge should be patient, dignified, respectful, and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers, and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity. A judge should require similar conduct of those subject to the judge’s control, including lawyers to the extent consistent with their role in the adversary process.

(4) A judge should accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, and that person’s lawyer, the full right to be heard according to law.

On Wednesday, February 5, 2014, you gave migratory birds $45,000. In handing down the sentence, you deferred your ruling on victim restitution and a remedial order and would issue a written order on those issues within the next 90 days. Why? Because at heart, you knew you were morally wrong and were afraid of looking the 80 victims in the eye and tell them they would get nothing to repay their medical and legal expenses, among others. Compared with the migratory birds’ rights, human rights are irreparably violated by your inhuman ruling, corrupt John!

Did you accord to every person who has a legal interest in the Citgo proceeding, and that person’s lawyer, the full right to be heard according to law? Didn’t the testimonies of their ten years’ miserable living in polluted air touch your heart?  You may have heard them, but you didn’t listen and didn’t understand because you are heartless, soulless and lawless, Mr. Rainey!

All the fingers are pointing at you,  Rainey!

You deprived them “of life, liberty, or property without due process of law” protected by both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

Canon 3A(5). A judge should dispose promptly of the business of the court.

You call 11.5 Months for TRO Motions and 7 years for murderous crimes against the poor, helpless citizens prompt disposal of the business of the court?

 I am so disappointed! How are we going to pay off the overdue medical bills?

(6) A judge should not make public comment on the merits of a matter pending or impending in any court. A judge should require similar restraint by court personnel subject to the judge’s direction and control. The prohibition on public comment on the merits does not extend to public statements made in the course of the judge’s official duties, to explanations of court procedures, or to scholarly presentations made for purposes of legal education.

(B) Administrative Responsibilities.

(1) A judge should diligently discharge administrative responsibilities, maintain professional competence in judicial administration, and facilitate the performance of the administrative responsibilities of other judges and court personnel.

(5) A judge should take appropriate action upon learning of reliable evidence indicating the likelihood that a judge’s conduct contravened this Code or a lawyer violated applicable rules of professional conduct.

(C) Disqualification.

(1) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances in which:

(a)the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;

(b)the judge served as a lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom the judge previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or lawyer has been a material witness;

(c)the judge knows that the judge, individually or as a fiduciary, or the judge’s spouse or minor child residing in the judge’s household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be affected substantially by the outcome of the proceeding;

This is to show our appreciation in advance, Senior Partner Rainey!

My boss will wire the rest to your offshore account as soon as you rule in our favor after 7 years’ litigation!

Don’t mention that; just do it!

(d)the judge or the judge’s spouse, or a person related to either within the third degree of relationship, or the spouse of such a person is:

(i) a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;

(2) A judge should keep informed about the judge’s personal and fiduciary financial interests and make a reasonable effort to keep informed about the personal financial interests of the judge’s spouse and minor children residing in the judge’s household. COMMENTARY

Canon 3A(3). The duty to hear all proceedings fairly and with patience is not inconsistent with the duty to dispose promptly of the business of the court. Courts can be efficient and businesslike while being patient and deliberate.

Patience is bitter, but its fruit is sweet. — Jean-Jacques Rousseau    Yes, the fruit of patience is sweet to Citgo and Mr. Rainey!

He that can have patience can have what he will. — Benjamin Franklin    Mr. Rainey, since you have patience to keep the victims waiting 7 years for nothing, you and your co-conspirators can have what you will.

Did Rousseau and Franklin say something wrong to benefit criminals like Citgo and you, John?

The duty under Canon 2 to act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary applies to all the judge’s activities, including the discharge of the judge’s adjudicative and administrative responsibilities. The duty to be respectful includes the responsibility to avoid comment or behavior that could reasonably be interpreted as harassment, prejudice or bias.

Canon 3A(4). The restriction on ex parte communications concerning a proceeding includes communications from lawyers, law teachers, and others who are not participants in the proceeding. A judge may consult with other judges or with court personnel whose function is to aid the judge in carrying out adjudicative responsibilities. A judge should make reasonable efforts to ensure that law clerks and other court personnel comply with this provision.

A judge may encourage and seek to facilitate settlement but should not act in a manner that coerces any party into surrendering the right to have the controversy resolved by the courts.

Canon 3A(5). In disposing of matters promptly, efficiently, and fairly, a judge must demonstrate due regard for the rights of the parties to be heard and to have issues resolved without unnecessary cost or delay. A judge should monitor and supervise cases to reduce or eliminate dilatory practices, avoidable delays, and unnecessary costs.

Prompt disposition of the court’s business requires a judge to devote adequate time to judicial duties, to be punctual in attending court and expeditious in determining matters under submission, and to take reasonable measures to ensure that court personnel, litigants, and their lawyers cooperate with the judge to that end.

Canon 3C. Recusal considerations applicable to a judge’s spouse should also be considered with respect to a person other than a spouse with whom the judge maintains both a household and an intimate relationship.

Canon 3C(1)(c). In a criminal proceeding, a victim entitled to restitution is not, within the meaning of this Canon, a party to the proceeding or the subject matter in controversy. A judge who has a financial interest in the victim of a crime is not required by Canon 3C(1)(c) to disqualify from the criminal proceeding, but the judge must do so if the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned under Canon 3C(1) or if the judge has an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding under Canon 3C(1)(d)(iii).

Canon 3C(1)(d)(ii). The fact that a lawyer in a proceeding is affiliated with a law firm with which a relative of the judge is affiliated does not of itself disqualify the judge. However, if “the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned” under Canon 3C(1), or the relative is known by the judge to have an interest in the law firm that could be “substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding” under Canon 3C(1)(d)(iii), the judge’s disqualification is required.

CANON 4: A JUDGE MAY ENGAGE IN EXTRAJUDICIAL ACTIVITIES THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE OBLIGATIONS OF JUDICIAL OFFICE

A judge may engage in extrajudicial activities, including law-related pursuits and civic, charitable, educational, religious, social, financial, fiduciary, and governmental activities, and may speak, write, lecture, and teach on both law-related and nonlegal subjects. However, a judge should not participate in extrajudicial activities that detract from the dignity of the judge’s office, interfere with the performance of the judge’s official duties, reflect adversely on the judge’s impartiality, lead to frequent disqualification, or violate the limitations set forth below.

(D) Financial Activities.

(4) A judge should comply with the restrictions on acceptance of gifts and the prohibition on solicitation of gifts set forth in the Judicial Conference Gift Regulations. A judge should endeavor to prevent any member of the judge’s family residing in the household from soliciting or accepting a gift except to the extent that a judge would be permitted to do so by the Judicial Conference Gift Regulations. A “member of the judge’s family” means any relative of a judge by blood, adoption, or marriage, or any person treated by a judge as a member of the judge’s family.

(H) Compensation, Reimbursement, and Financial Reporting. A judge may accept compensation and reimbursement of expenses for the law-related and extrajudicial activities permitted by this Code if the source of the payments does not give the appearance of influencing the judge in the judge’s judicial duties or otherwise give the appearance of impropriety, subject to the following restrictions:

(1) Compensation should not exceed a reasonable amount nor should it exceed what a person who is not a judge would receive for the same activity.

(2) Expense reimbursement should be limited to the actual costs of travel, food, and lodging reasonably incurred by the judge and, where appropriate to the occasion, by the judge’s spouse or relative. Any additional payment is compensation.

(3) A judge should make required financial disclosures, including disclosures of gifts and other things of value, in compliance with applicable statutes and Judicial Conference regulations and directives.

Canon 4F. The appropriateness of accepting extrajudicial assignments must be assessed in light of the demands on judicial resources and the need to protect the courts from involvement in matters that may prove to be controversial. Judges should not accept governmental appointments that could interfere with the effectiveness and independence of the judiciary, interfere with the performance of the judge’s judicial responsibilities, or tend to undermine public confidence in the judiciary.

Canon 4H. A judge is not required by this Code to disclose income, debts, or investments, except as provided in this Canon. The Ethics Reform Act of 1989 and implementing regulations promulgated by the Judicial Conference impose additional restrictions on judges’ receipt of compensation. That Act and those regulations should be consulted before a judge enters into any arrangement involving the receipt of compensation. The restrictions so imposed include but are not limited to: (1) a prohibition against receiving “honoraria” (defined as anything of value received for a speech, appearance, or article), (2) a prohibition against receiving compensation for service as a director, trustee, or officer of a profit or nonprofit organization, (3) a requirement that compensated teaching activities receive prior approval, and (4) a limitation on the receipt of “outside earned income.”

 

TO BE CONTINUED.

Paul Chen

 

 

 

Mr. Rainey: Too big to punish? Shame on you and pity for the crime victims!

Excerpts from Priscila Mosqueda‘s heartbreaking posts.

John D. Rainey is rotten, vicious, heartless, soulless, merciless, ruthless! Let the court of public opinion be the judge!

I have been the victim of heartless malice. — Taylor Caldwell
People can be so heartless and dirty. — Jim Goad
The American people have not become heartless. — Joe Biden But some judges like John D. Rainey and Janis Graham Jack are malicious, heartless and dirty. That’s an undeniable fact!

He is a ruthless judge and one must be ruthless to cope with him. Criminally, let’s try to have him jailed for crimes done, and pay for compensatory and punitive damages civilly! I assure you that he cannot enjoy judicial immunity for acts done in violation of the litigants’ constitutional rights.

Oil giant Citgo gets off easy in criminal case

Priscila Mosqueda | Center for Public Integrity

http://www.publicintegrity.org/authors/priscila-mosqueda

Residents of Corpus Christi, Texas, who say they were sickened by emissions from the Citgo refinery decry a judge’s denial of restitution.

Oil Giant Citgo Gets Slap On the Wrist for 10 Years of Illegal Operations

Priscila Mosqueda, Center for Public Integrity | May 16, 2014 10:02 am |

Rainey rejected the residents’ and the government’s requests for restitution, which would have included funding for annual cancer screenings and other diseases linked to chemical exposure. The Justice Department also had asked that Citgo set up one trust fund to cover property buyouts and relocation costs and another for victims’ future medical expenses, attorney’s fees and other administrative costs, at a total cost of $55 million.

In an April 30 statement that baffled many, Rainey wrote that victims would be better off receiving nothing from Citgo than waiting for the court to determine what they are owed. That echoed his earlier decision to fine Citgo only $2 million for four violations of the Clean Air Act, a fraction of the potential penalty. 

What was your logic in saying that victims would be better off receiving nothing from Citgo than waiting for the court to determine what they are owed? It was OK for you to sit on their rights for seven years after the jury found Citgo guilty of criminal and civil violations of environmental law in 2007. Why is it not permissible to have a jury panel decide how much the crime victims are owed? I believe none of them would object to waiting for a year or two as long as justice is served. 

The Justice Department had argued that the Corpus Christi refinery made $1 billion as a direct result of illegally operating the tanks. It wanted to fine the company using a provision that allows punishment of twice the “gross, pecuniary gain” realized by violating the law, which would have allowed for a fine of up to $2 billion. But Rainey—after nearly seven years of delays in sentencing—ruled that empaneling a jury to determine Citgo’s exact profits would “unduly prolong” the sentencing process.

The Justice Department offered evidence during the sentencing hearing that Citgo made $150 billion in profits during the 10 years its Corpus Christi refinery was violating the law. The 165,000-barrel-per-day refinery stands in stark contrast to the low-income, mostly minority neighborhoods in its shadow. People simply can’t afford to move out—most of the homes there are appraised at $30,000 to $40,000 and residents say to move even a few miles away from the refinery would cost them upwards of $100,000.

Corrupt Judge Rainey: You let Citgo get away with its 10-year $150 billion profits; you make a mockery of the American justice system! How much did they give you as a reward, gift, or bribe? You have unjustly enriched them so much that they can afford to show their gratitude in a great variety of ways.

 This is a small portion available to reward you for ruling in favor of our Oil Company.

More in storage at a Swiss bank, your honor:

   

Gonzalez’s husband worked at Citgo for 20 years; for a time she took him lunch every day and sometimes dropped him off or picked him up from work. Gonzalez developed breast cancer—she’s now in remission—and has nerve damage in her feet that makes her feel as though she’s constantly walking on rocks. Her husband has prostate cancer and heart problems; the couple traces their conditions to the refinery’s emissions. Before Gonzalez found out she had breast cancer, she says, a blood test revealed she had benzene in her blood.

“Never does anything escape from the plant,” Gonzalez says. “And yet everybody has allergies and people are dying of cancer.”

“Rainey wrote that victims would be better off receiving nothing from Citgo than waiting for the court to determine what they are owed.” When contrite words are expected of him, such a cold-blooded, inhuman statement is disgusting, offensive, repugnant!

You could have written in your VOID Orders: Paul Chen, you would be better off receiving nothing from your defendants than waiting for me to determine what they are owed. It might take more than a decade! And you are absolutely right, the disHonorable John D. Rainey!

But no less stubborn and persistent than your dishonor, I am willing to wait. It’s not over until I say it’s over! I’ll see you in court, but not in Janis Graham Jack’s court, which you assigned with an improper purpose for collusion with her!

 

Please click Priscila Mosqueda for further details!

 

TO BE CONTINUED.

Paul Chen

Mr. Rainey: Did you ignore 28 U.S.C. §1915(d) & Rules Enabling Act Rule 1-041(E)(2) or were simply ignorant of these two rules?

This is a summary of Open Letter to Judge John D. Rainey and Judge Janis Graham Jack of Texas, Addressing and Suing Them as Private Citizens Posted on June 10, 2012; PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT FOR REINSTATEMENT OF THE SIX COMPLAINTS Posted on April 22, 2012; AMENDED PAUL CHEN’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION AND APPLICATION FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION Posted on May 13, 2013 and other documents relating to 28 U.S.C. §1915(d) & Rules Enabling Act Rule 1-041(E)(2) filed in the records of various federal and state cases. Each and every statement is substantiated by sufficient facts and applicable law. All the court documents have been or will be submitted under oath. The purpose of publishing the posts here at WORDPRESS is to teach myself and those similarly situated how to protect our rights guaranteed by our Constitution, i.e., MANDAMUS: VOID Orders/Judgments: PREPARE TO FILE A PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS WITHOUT A LAWYER.

If you read the above-cited posts, you will have a general idea why Mr. Rainey was and still is absolutely wrong in rendering those orders without subject matter jurisdiction. I will present the two issues here more briefly, concisely, and systematically, which is required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. I admit that as a layman, I was not aware of it until July 12, 2010 when Mr. Rainey pointed it out in his VOID Dismissal Order! You win some; you lose some, John!

1. Under the Supreme Law of the Land, whenever a judge acts when the judge does not have subject-matter jurisdiction, the judge is engaged in an act of treason. U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5L.Ed 257 (1821).
2. After a ten-month delay in granting me to proceed in forma pauperis on 2/13/06 in response to my 4/14/05 MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, you violated 28 U.S.C. Section 1915 (d) without requiring the Clerk to issue summons and serve all process. Section 1915 (d) provides, in pertinent part: “The officers of the court shall issue and serve all process, and perform all duties in such cases.” Consequently, you were in complete absence of subject matter or personal jurisdiction. Without of subject matter, you have been engaged in many acts of treason since 2/13/06.Being a traitor, you are entitled to a just and fair trial. Though you are stripped of judicial immunity, you should enjoy the same privileges of handcuffs, standing behind bars as the other traitors.
3.  

 In ancient times, you would have ended up being hanged or executed!

  

 

I’m a traitor, but I don’t consider myself a traitor. — Aldrich Ames (former Central Intelligence Agency officer and analyst and agent for the Soviet Union and later Russia — Life imprisonment (without parole)

“Neither am I,” responded John D. Rainey.

Ames’ mug shot, taken on the day of his arrest 

 

TO BE CONTINUED.

Paul Chen

 

 

Swearing in Nelva Gonzales Ramos, you allowed her to take on her new duties as a federal judge?

John D. Rainey Swearing in Nelva Gonzales Ramos

This is illegal because it’s performed by a constitutionally disqualified judge!

      

“You look like a good apple, but you are rotten at the core, John! I know it!”

“Agreed, but only partially! To tell you the truth, I am indeed a bad apple, rotten to the core, not just at the core, Paul!”

Judge Ramos’ swearing-in ceremony

Congratulations, Judge Ramos! You are legally sworn in now!

Michael Zamora/Caller-Times Chief Judge Ricardo Hinojosa (left) gives the oath of office to new U.S. District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos on Thursday during her formal swearing-in ceremony at the Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi Performing Arts Center.        Corpus Christi Caller-Times

 

Mr.  Rainey:

Being accused of abuse and misuse of judicial power, trespassing, usurpation, conspiracy, corruption, and treason, you are an abuser and misuser of judicial power, trespasser, usurper, conspirator, corrupter, and traitor.

Being named one of the RICO persons in my RICO claims, you become one of the racketeers. Burdened with such crimes, how could you swear in Nelva Gonzales Ramos, allowing her to take on her new duties as a federal judge? See my Open Letter to Judge John D. Rainey and Judge Janis Graham Jack of Texas, Addressing and Suing Them as Private Citizens Posted on June 10, 2012 by ricofraudonthecourt.   

Disrespectfully posted,

Paul Chen

P.S.  After filing six complaints in V–06-78, and numerous motions in other cases in your court for the past nine years, I finally found this photo of yours, but  your face is still a mystery. Can the world only see your back? I can’t imagine why you have not allowed me to have a day in court to look you in the eyes, be it handsome or ugly, kind or cruel!  Perhaps you know at heart that the face of an abuser and misuser of judicial power, trespasser, usurper, conspirator, corrupter, and traitor can never be pretty! Neither can that of a racketeer!

******************************************************************************************

Mistakes are part of life, everyone makes them, everyone regrets them. But, some learn from them and some end up making them again. It’s up to you to decide if you’ll use your mistakes to your advantage. — Meredith Sapp

In law a man is guilty when he violates the rights of others. In ethics he is guilty if he only thinks of doing so. — Immanuel Kant

Immanuel Kant (April 22, 1724 – February 12, 1804) German philosopher widely considered a central figure of modern philosophy.

Every guilty person is his own hangman. — Lucius Annaeus Seneca (4 BC – AD 65) Roman Stoic philosopher, statesman, dramatist.

Are you your own hangman, Mr. Rainey?  To have a better idea why I am so disrespectful to a supposedly respectable federal judge, please refer to Mr. Rainey: Why did you sit on my TRO Motions for 11.5 months without taking any actions while others were issued in an hour with a phone call or in one day?  and the Open Letter Posted on June 10, 2012 by ricofraudonthecourt.   

In your criminal cases, if the suspect is charged with abuse and misuse of judicial power, trespassing, usurpation, conspiracy, corruption, and treason in addition to criminal and civil RICO violations, how are you going to render a verdict against the accused?

If, like you, he remains silent and cannot prove his innocence, what’s your solution? For conspiracy charges, wouldn’t shackle each convict with ball and chain be the proper punishment? And a life sentence for all counts as charged? Punishment is to deter future repetitions and copycats, right?

 

This man is being arrested for committing a crime.

How about abuse and misuse of judicial power, trespassing, usurpation, conspiracy, corruption, treason, and RICO crimes?

This is his first punishment, that by the verdict of his own heart no guilty man is acquitted. — Juvenal (/ˈdʒuːvənəl/), Roman poet active in the late 1st and early 2nd century AD, author of the Satires.

Can you deny Juvenal’s words of wisdom that have taught people all over the world for nearly 2000 years? Can you acquit yourself like conspiring with Ms. Janis Graham Jack to put up a farce in 2010? It only took two minutes of her lunchtime to have me thrown out of court without having the Clerk give notice to the defendant, JOHN D. RAINEY, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §1915(d)!

“I’m absolutely, l00 percent, not guilty,” said O. J. Simpson.

“So am I,” said John D. Rainey!

A man must be big enough to admit his mistakes, smart enough to profit from them, and strong enough to correct them. — John C. Maxwell (born 1947).    He is an American author, speaker, and pastor who has written 71 different books, primarily focusing on leadership. His book The 21 Indispensable Qualities of a Leader: Becoming the Person Others Will Want to Follow and some others are on the New York Times Best Seller List.      Looks like big enough, smart enough, and strong enough can’t be found in your legal dictionary, John David Rainey!

Do you want to become the Person Others Will Want to Follow, John? Get a copy, and read it carefully, then! Why? Your ethically, morally, and legally repugnant behavior has coarsened the body politic, and is to be shunned because it is as infectious as plagues!

Here is another conscience-shocking example of Mr. Rainey’s abuse and misuse of judicial power, trespassing, usurpation, conspiracy, corruption, treason, and RICO crimes! Please click:  Pollution Is a Violent Crime—Prosecute It as Such – The …

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/08/environmental-racism-is…

May 08, 2014 · But pollution is a violent crime—and should be prosecuted … U.S. District Judge John D. Rainey decided Wednesday that victims of Citgo’s criminal …

“U.S. District Judge John D. Rainey decided Wednesday that victims of Citgo’s criminal—literally criminal—pollution will receive no restitution. Citgo won’t have to pay any of the $55 million that the Justice Department had requested.

The money would have gone to compensate the victims, pay for future health screenings, and in some cases relocate households. Instead, Citgo will pay only a $2 million fine that is the legal minimum for its criminal violation of the Clean Air Act. This was the first time an oil refinery had been held criminally liable under the Act.

Benzene causes cancer, thins the blood to cause symptoms resembling hemophilia, and damages fetuses exposed to it. Because a jury found Citgo a criminal under the Clean Air Act, 800 Hillcrest residents qualified as crime victims. Normally that means that, when the criminal has money, a court will order payments to make the victim whole, or as close as possible.” — This decision is a flagrant abuse of discretion; it must be reversed! See also: Texas Judge Gives No Restitution to Citgo’s Victims in … May 14, 2014 – It took another seven years, until February, before the judge in the case finally sentenced the company. U.S. District Judge John D. Rainey …. 

It’s not unusual for him to have been sitting on a case for seven years. But I can’t imagine how the cancer victims and their families had to suffer through in those 2,500 days and nights and found to their great disappointment that there would be no money for their medical or funeral expenses! 

The defendants in the six complaints I filed in V-06-78 have never been served process according to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). They shall be reinstated under Rule 1-041(E)(2) of Rules Enabling Act because Mr. Rainey has been sleeping on my rights since 2005 without any hearing! That’s nine long years now! My next step is to file PETITION FOR MANDAMUS to have the Court of Appeals compel him to have my causes of action reinstated because reinstatement is mandatory under Rule 1-041(E)(2) of Rules Enabling Act since he rendered the VOID ORDERS in the complete absence of jurisdiction.

Procrastination is the bad habit of putting off until the day after tomorrow what should have been done the day before yesterday. —  Napoleon Hill

Procrastination is the good habit of putting off until the year after next year what should have been done the year before last year.  —  John D. Rainey

 

 Lady Justice is 100% impartial because she doesn’t care who gets to keep the $55 million, Citgo or the 800 Hillcrest residents. She only cares about justice and fairness.

Your decision is so grossly unfair, unjust, unconscionable, unusually harsh and shocking to the conscience that no mentally competent judge would render it,  that no fair, honest, and reasonable person would accept it, and that the appellate court’s reversal of the judgment is warranted.

Just as industrial air pollution is intolerable so is judicial corruption!

* Corruption: An act done with an intent to give some advantage inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others. It includes bribery, but is more comprehensive; because an act may be corruptly done, though the advantage to be derived from it be not offered by another. See An Open Letter to Judges John D. Rainey and Janis Graham Jack charging them with abuse and misuse of judicial power, trespassing, usurpation, conspiracy, corruption, and treason! Posted on June 8, 2012. Can’t you see how corrupt you are, Mr. Rainey? You don’t have to be caught red-handed with bribes to be corrupt! Any reasonable businessman would be willing to offer you 10% out of $55 million. No one will ever know if any deal is done under the table except you and Citgo. Attorneys paid on a contingency basis would get 33%, i.e., $18 million+.

   

Ten percent is $5.5 million. The three suitcases are incapable of delivering the whole amount, sir!

He that is of the opinion money will do everything may well be suspected of doing everything for money. — Benjamin Franklin

 

All my client’s gold bars are safely deposited in a Swiss bank vault, your honor.

 

 

 

Mr. Rainey: Why did you sit on my TRO Motions for 11.5 months without taking any actions while others were issued in an hour with a phone call or in one day?

“All men make mistakes, but a good man yields when he knows his course is wrong, and repairs the evil. The only crime is pride.” ― Sophocles, AntigoneIs Mr. Rainey a good man, who never yields when he knows his course is wrong, and never repairs the evil? — My next post on Rules Enabling Act Rule 1-041(E)(2) and 28 USC § 1915(d) will speak for itself! — Please also refer to: Open Letter to Judge John D. Rainey and Judge Janis Graham Jack of Texas, Addressing and Suing Them as Private Citizens Posted on June 10, 2012. **************************************************************************************************** THIS POST IS TO SHOW THE WORLD YOUR TRUE COLORS or rather your false colors, Mr. John D. Rainey! As far as I am concerned, you are disqualified and are liable for civil damages actions and accountable for your criminal activities, including, but not limited to, TREASON!  I have been fighting for justice and fairness since 2005 when I filed my first independent action in Civil Actions: 6:05-mc-00002 in your court. However, for the past nine years, you have never had the Clerk comply with 28 USC §1915(d) to serve the defendants any summons and my six complaints filed in V-06-78. The Clerk’s duty was mandatory after my application for proceeding in forma pauperis was granted despite 10 months’ delay. Consequently, none of the defendants had ever been before your court for adjudication, and you have been in clear absence of all jurisdiction. You have NEVER had any power or authority to hear and determine the controversies, which have never been presented before you. Thus, you have committed many acts of TREASON! I waited in Days Inn Port Lavaca for the issuance of the TROs for several months, then rented a house in El Campo, and had to suffer from your callous, arbitrary, unreasonable dismissal of all my Motions after 11.5 months’ undue delay. Despite my numerous phone calls and letters to your case manager Ms. Joyce Richards, and pleadings submitted in the record, you never had the Clerk perform his mandatory duty to serve process on Defendants Terry J. Cox, Anita L. Koop & Anita’s Resort Properties, Inc. in case 6:09-mc-11 Chen v. Cox. The latter has been a non-existent corporation since June 6, 1993 when its assumed name certificate expired without renewal. When I sued you in 610-cv-00056 Chen v. Rainey for violations of my legal and equitable rights protected by the US Constitution, and asked you to recuse yourself, you refused to abide by the controlling law; you arbitrarily and unreasonably dismissed all my actions with a single brush. Under such circumstances, your recusal or disqualification was mandatory. See the controlling precedents below: Judges shall disqualify themselves in all proceedings in which: they know that, individually or as a fiduciary, they have an interest in the subject matter in controversy. Tex.R.Civ.P. 18b(1) (Vernon Supp.1995). This is one of the constitutional grounds for disqualification which cannot be waived. The Texas Constitution states three circumstances in which a judge is disqualified from sitting in a case. Article V, section 11 states, in pertinent part, that “[n]o judge shall sit in any case wherein he may be interested.” Tex. Const. art. V, § 11. Two statutes codify this mandate. The Government Code provides, in pertinent part, that a judge is disqualified from sitting in cases in which the judge is interested. Tex.Gov’t Code Ann. § 21.005 (Vernon Supp.1995). Disqualification cannot be waived and can be raised at any time. Buckholts Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Glaser, 632 S.W.2d 146, 148 (Tex .1982). As a general rule, a judge who is a party to a suit, even though he or she has not been served with process, may not preside over that case, decide any matters requiring judicial discretion, or approve the minutes of the court. Hawpe v. Smith, 22 Tex. 410 (1858). Article V, Section 11 of the Texas Constitution provides that no judge shall sit in any case wherein he or she may be interested. See Tex. Const. art. V, § 11. Likewise, Rule 18b(1) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the judges shall disqualify themselves in all proceedings in which they have an interest in the subject matter in controversy. See Tex.R. Civ. P. 18b(1)(b). The interest that disqualifies a judge is an interest, however small, which rests on a direct pecuniary or personal interest in the result of the case. Cameron v. Greenhill, 582 S.W.2d 775, 776 (Tex.1979) (per curiam). If a judge is disqualified, the judge is without jurisdiction to hear the case, and therefore, any judgment rendered is void and a nullity. Buckholts Indep. School Dist. v. Glaser, 632 S.W.2d 148 (Tex. 1982); Gulf Mar. Warehouse Co. v. Towers, 858 S.W.2d 556, 560 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 1993, writ denied); Lone Star Indus., Inc. v. Ater, 845 S.W.2d 334, 336 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1992, no writ).In comparison with one-hour phone approval of Looper v. Morgan, Judge Rainey’s 11.5-month delay and inaction of the two urgent TRO Motions I filed on July 31, 2009 was impermissible violation of my due process and equal protection under the 5th Amendemnt. Besides, in my Civil Actions: 6:05-mc-00002 and V-06-78, 6:09-mc-11, and 610-cv-00056 Chen v. Rainey, the Clerk violated 28 USC Sec. 1915(d) without serving process. Thus, the courts had no subject matter jurisdiction to hear and determine the causes of action.  Remember: whenever a judge acts when the judge does not have subject-matter jurisdiction, the judge is engaged in an act of treason. See U.S. v. Will. The record shows that in Looper v. Morgan, Civ. No. H-92-0294, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10241, (S.D. Tex. June 23, 1995), on January 24, 1992, Judge Rainey’s Court received a telephone call from Looper’s attorneys seeking an order restraining a customs search at the airport. — The Court immediately issued a temporary restraining order directing Morgan to seal the documents and deliver them to the United States Marshal, who would transport them to the Court. (Dkt. #2). The Court later the same day ordered the record of this case sealed. (Dkt. #6).” It can be sealed for no more than ten days until the injunction hearing, not for almost a year without any action like my 2 urgent TRO Motions. If this is not discrimination, what is?      You are biased, prejudiced, unfair, and racially discriminatory! You have no sympathy for the underdogs, and let them down! Furthermore, in Heartbrand Beef, Inc. v. Lobel’s of New York, LLC et al, a COMPLAINT was filed on July 25, 2008, and on July 30, 2008 Judge Rainey rendered an ORDER for Initial Pretrial and Scheduling Conference and Order to Disclose Interested Persons. For the 30 TRO MOTIONS submitted in the record of the case 6:09-mc-11 Chen v. Cox, please click the attachment link. 30 cited cases show that in Case Nos. 1-12, the TRO Motions were issued on the same day they were filed. SUMMARY OF THE 30 TRO MOTIONS AND ISSUANCES Case Nos. 1-12 SAME DAY (TRO Motion to Issuance) Case Nos. 13-19 1-2 DAYS (TRO Motion to Issuance) Case Nos. 20-22 3-4 DAYS (TRO Motion to Issuance) Case Nos. 23-26 5 DAYS (TRO Motion to Issuance) Case Nos. 27-28 6 DAYS (TRO Motion to Issuance) Case No. 29 7 DAYS (TRO Motion to Issuance) Case No. 30 21 DAYS (TRO, Preliminary Injunction, Consent Decree, Final Judgment) ****************************************************************************************** Gold TRUTH is absolutely heavier than gray LIES!   “Live so that when your children think of fairness and integrity, they think of you.” — H. Jackson Brown, Jr. quotes (American best selling writer, author of Life’s Little Instruction Book) Mr. Rainey: When your children think of you, I think, they will think of unfairness and the opposite of integrity, deceit, dishonesty, corruption, dishonor, TREASON!

 of TREASON!

*****************************************************************************

Paul Chen

P.S. I just visited THE ROBIN ROOM, and found three comments of interest to share with you all here:

Hon. John D. Rainey	See Rating Details
District Judge	See Comments
S.D.Tex.

 

Comment #: 20631: Stood in front of the judge and takes cases personally: manifest injustice experienced from his erroneous, malicious rulings which were in violation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, various Federal Statutes, and the First and Fifth Amendments to the United State Constitution. Specifically, the litigants were deprived of their constitutionally protected rights to access the court for redress of grievances, due process, equal protection, among others. I agree he is tired of his job, and it shows but I ask should the public pay for that. I just ask be fair to the people that look up to the position you have as the judge which should follow the law just as any law abiding citizen.     Comment #: 18544: Manifest injustice experienced from his erroneous, malicious rulings which were in violation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, various Federal Statutes, and the First and Fifth Amendments to the United State Constitution. Specifically, the litigants were deprived of their constitutionally protected rights to access the court for redress of grievances, due process, equal protection, among others.

Comment #: 13308: Biased, prejudiced, inexcusable delays, unfair, unjust, unconscionable, ignorant of or indifferent to litigants’ constitutional rights. The worst judge I have ever encountered in my life!

 

Comment #: 20631: I agree he is tired of his job, and it shows!

 

So these are the cases that have remained dormant in your docket for years without service of process!

You’ve indeed accumulated a large backlog over the last ten years!

And you are in the habit of clearing the crowded docket by wholesale dismissals of all the pro se litigants’ complaints whether they have been granted to proceed in forma pauperis before!

 

 

 

Koetter, the worst judge in Texas, second only to Rainey, the most corrupt federal judge!

 

 

 

Judge Janis Graham Jack is even worse!

Koetter = Juergen “Skipper” Koetter

Rainey = John D. Rainey Sorry, Mr. Rainey. You may have become the scapegoat for your buddy in Texas. It has just come to my notice that you seem to live in South Carolina, and that you are not a corrupt federal judge in southern Texas. But I cannot find any photo of this No. 1 bad federal judge. Unless you object to my posting your picture here, I will regard these as John D. Rainey for the time being until a replacement is available. I don’t believe Judge Rainey has the guts to post his picture online for all the people to see his real traitor’s face! Based on facts: court papers in the record of each and every case and law: case law, statutes, rules, regulations, and the U.S. Constitution, I label him traitor because he committed an act or acts of treason. Let’s see how he is to be punished in the court of law where he shall be removed for cause if not impeached!

Mr. Rainey, you are guilty of treason. As a senior judge, don’t you know that rendering orders in the absence of subject-matter jurisdiction is treason?

Why do you say that, your honor?

U.S. v. Will held:

Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of  the United States, wars against that Constitution and engages in  violation of the Supreme Law of the Land. If a judge does not fully comply with the Constitution, then his orders are void, In re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (1888), he is without jurisdiction, and he/she has  engaged in an act or acts of treason. U.S. v. Will; Cohens v. Virginia.

*****************************************************************************

In my Civil Actions: 6:05-mc-00002 and V-06-78, 6:09-mc-11, and 610-cv-00056 Chen v. Rainey, the Clerk violated 28 USC Sec. 1915(d) without serving process. Thus, the courts had no subject matter jurisdiction to hear and determine the causes of action.  Remember: whenever a judge acts when the judge does not have subject-matter jurisdiction, the judge is engaged in an act of treason. See U.S. v. Will.

“You have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the Constitution.”  See Cohen v. Virginia; U.S. v. Will.

And the actor of treason is named traitor, isn’t it, Mr. Rainey? Therefore, Koetter is called a traitor. Neither you nor Janis Graham Jack can escape from sharing this good name! Why Jack? Because she presided over 610-cv-00056 Chen v. Rainey without jurisdiction. The Clerk never served the Defendant, you, any process, and her court had neither subject matter nor personal jurisdiction! That’s why she also falls into the trap, and is subject to the criminal prosecution of TREASON besides my civil damages claims.

Like you, she is merely a private citizen sued in her personal capacity for deprivation of my statutory and constitutional rights!

  Is that you, Janis? You must have lost at least 50 pounds compared with your weight at the 2-minute hearing on 9/22/2010.

There was a Pretrial Conference scheduled at Corpus Christi at 1 p.m. on September 22, 2010 for 610-cv-00056 Chen v. Rainey. But you moved it to your lunch break and in 2 minutes, you had the case thrown out without the Defendant John D. Rainey’s appearance though he was holding court across the hall!

What a farce! Are you above the law, mean, spiteful, hateful, biased Janis?  Do you know I had to spend $500+ flying Continental from Omaha to Corpus? And you threw me out of court in 2 minutes without the Clerk serving process on the parties in interest, especially Defendant John D. Rainey, pursuant to 28 U.S. Code § 1915(d).

You cannot make any ruling without strict compliance with well-established and clearly defined laws and procedures. You are not above the law, and as a public official you may not act arbitrarily or unilaterally outside the law.  You made a mockery of the rule of law. The purported 2-minute lunchtime Pretrial Conference was a mockery, a travesty of justice. You knew beforehand that you would not have to hear my argument, which has a sound basis in fact and in law, and that two minutes at most four would be sufficient to have a meritorious claim blindly thrown out of your lunch table.

It is a great misfortune for the law-abiding citizens not to have you impeached and removed from office a long time ago!

I just reviewed Robing Room Ratings and Comments, and am surprised that you are superior to Koetter and Rainey because you are rated the worst federal judge around, perhaps in history!!! Good for you!

Civil Litigation – Private Comment #: 18847
Rating:1.5
Comments:

Why did litigants say you are mean, spiteful, hateful, biased? And I have not seen you for the past three months! Vacation?
Without a doubt the worst federal judge around, perhaps in history. Mean, spiteful, hateful, biased. Has fired/destroyed literally dozens of her law clerks, and seems to enjoy it in a sick sociopathic way. On vacation most of the year also.
Send e-mail to this poster 10/22/2012 2:57:24 PM See AN OPEN LETTER TO THE SENATE AND HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE MEMBERS URGING JANIS GRAHAM JACK IMPEACHMENT Posted on November 10, 2012.

Hangman: Are you ready, Mr. Traitor! My ax is ready!

  

It’s awful, isn’t it, Mr. Axman?

That’s the execution of traitors in the olden days!

 TODAY’S LETHAL INJECTION EXECUTION

Convicted murderer Richard Cobb stared into the face of the Texas prison warden who attended his execution Thursday night and told him that the lethal drugs just injected into his body were “awesome.”  See Last Words: Texas Con Calls Lethal Injection ‘Awesome‘ – ABC News.

Images for lethal injection

Mr. Rainey’s wrongdoings have been reported in several posts over the past two years. See Open Letter to Judge John D. Rainey and Judge Janis Graham Jack of Texas, Addressing and Suing Them as Private Citizens Posted on June 10, 2012; An Open Letter to Judges John D. Rainey and Janis Graham Jack charging them with abuse and misuse of judicial power, trespassing, usurpation, conspiracy, corruption, and treason! Posted on June 8, 2012; Abuse and Misuse of Judicial Power, Trespassing, Usurpation, Conspiracy, Corruption, Treason, and RICO Posted on September 26, 2012; How to Justifiably & Reasonably Charge the Officers of the Court with Abuse and Misuse of Judicial Power, Trespassing, Usurpation, Conspiracy, Corruption, Treason, and Racketeering? Posted on November 19, 2012; MOTION TO VACATE THE FINAL JUDGMENT, REINSTATE THE CASE and COMPLAINT AGAINST DEPRIVATIONS OF CIVIL RIGHTS (revised) Posted on March 25, 2013; PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT FOR REINSTATEMENT OF THE SIX COMPLAINTS FILED IN V-06-78 Posted on April 17, 2012; PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT FOR REINSTATEMENT OF THE SIX COMPLAINTS  Posted on April 22, 2012 & others.

Because you committed abuse and misuse of judicial power, trespassing, usurpation, conspiracy, corruption, and treason, you are naturally called an abuser and misuser of judicial power, trespasser, usurper, conspirator, corrupter, and traitor. You seem to have been honored with quite a few new titles, your dishonor!

If you preside over your own treason case, how many years shall you or must you sentence the traitor-yourself to prison?  For treason alone, what will be the mandatory minimum penalties or how much time you will be facing, Mr. Rainey?

Do you believe the DA would allow you to sit on the bench and render an order and a judgment in favor of yourself against the United States? Can you repeat what you did to me in this TREASON case where you are again the Defendant and the presiding judge at the same time? Don’t you think any reasonable man would regard this as ridiculous, egregious, outrageous, flagrant, preposterous misconduct?

You can let go of the gavel now! You are not trying to play the role of the prison judge in John Grisham’s Brethren, are you?

 Upon completing Koetter’s case, I’ll continue to report your non-performance of your non-judicial, non-adjudicatory, ministerial, administrative duties, which do not entitle you to absolute, judicial immunity.

At best, you have qualified immunity. However, you have not performed discretionary functions which are shielded from liability for civil damages. Instead, your conduct violated my clearly established statutory and constitutional rights of which a reasonable judicial officer in your position would have known. Consequently, you are neither immune from civil actions nor from criminal prosecutions.

  If you could sit on my two TRO Motions for 11.5 months without doing anything, no wonder your file cabinet is filled with so many stale cases, Mr. Rainey!

So these are the cases that have remained dormant in your docket for years without service of process!

You’ve indeed accumulated a large backlog over the last ten years!

And you are in the habit of clearing the crowded docket by wholesale dismissals of all the pro se litigants’ complaints whether they were granted to proceed in forma pauperis before!

*****************************************************************************

Paul  Chen

 

Don’t cover your face!

Are you hiding your identity from shame, your honor?

 

Underdog fighting tooth and nail against repression and injustice!

 

 

 

Judge Koetter Rendered 6 VOID Orders/Judgments without Jurisdiction or Due Process.

I accuse Judge Skipper Koetter of Abuse/Misuse of Judicial Power, Trespassing, Usurpation, Conspiracy, Corruption, Treason & RICO. Complete Silence? Posted on July 26, 2014. Please click the above link to view my new post, which was published at ricofraudonthecourt.com by mistake! It was meant for this BLOG! 

Corruption: “Power does not corrupt. Fear corrupts… perhaps the fear of a loss of power.”  ― John Steinbeck

Saint Augustine: “Punishment is justice for the unjust.”

Your honor, would you like to count the money? By the way, my boss sends his regards!

But men are so full of greed today, they’ll sell anything for a little piece of money. — Little Richard   But the briefcase is filled with so many $100 bills that you cannot call it a little piece of money, Little Richard!

You may have the crushing judicial power usurped without jurisdiction and authority, you may be as big as Goliath, but I am as strong as David!

Not David Roberts, your accomplice, though.

David and Goliath by  Michelangelo

******************************************************************************************

“I play to win and if it looks like I’ve lost, it’s only because it’s not over yet.” ― Kiera Dellacroix, Engravings of Wraith

I litigate to win and if it looks like I’ve lost every case, it’s only because it’s not over yet.   ― Paul Chen

******************************************************************************************

I. The 6 VOID Orders/Judgments were Rendered without Jurisdiction, Power or Authority, or inconsistent with Due Process.

1. It is the judiciary’s responsibility to promote and provide fair and equal treatment to all parties. Individual judges are charged with the task of adjudicating claims in a manner that protects the rights of both parties. See In re Thomas, 873 S.W.2d 477, 496-97 (Tex. Rev. Trib. 1994) (citations omitted). Judge Koetter has never taken his responsibility to promote and provide fair and equal treatment to Chen in all the cases before him. He is charged with the task of adjudicating claims in a manner that protects the rights of both parties. But his arbitrary rulings and misconduct demonstrate bias, prejudice, partiality, favoritism, unfairness, and injustice contrary to the task imposed on him.
2. In conspiracy with the attorneys involved in these cases, Plaintiffs’ attorneys, e.g., Randall W. Hill, et al., and David Roberts, Esq., Judge Koetter committed fraud on the 10-6-28, 10-6-29, 10-6-13752 & 12-4-1596 Courts by proceeding to hear the cases and making decisions without any power, authority or jurisdiction.
3. Chen contends that due process was not accorded him and other interested parties in Causes Nos. 10-6-28, 10-6-29, 10-6-13752 & 12-4-1596. Thus, subject matter jurisdiction failed in these Koetter courts because Judge Koetter

1) did not follow statutory procedure by requiring Plaintiffs to prove existence of subject matter jurisdiction when Chen challenged the court’s lack of it. Armstrong v. Obucino, 300 Ill 140, 143 (1921) (If a court’s decision is plainly contrary to a statute or the constitution, the court will be held to have acted without power or jurisdiction, making the judgment void), See, e.g., United States v. Indoor Cultivation Equip., 55 F.3d 1311, 1317 (7th Cir. 1995).

2) did not act impartially and did not even have any appearance of impartiality by allowing the three opposing attorneys to approach the bench, by smilingly signing their prepared Order/Judgment without any change, and by not even glancing at Chen’s Pleadings. See Bracey V Warden, U.S. Supreme Court No. 96-6133 (June 9, 1997).

3) violated due process in holding the July 15, 2010 hearing by ambush (lack of pretrial discovery thwarted justice, subverted, undermined, and impeded Chen’s fact-finding ability, and unfairly hampered the presentation of his counterclaims and affirmative defenses) and rendering the November 30, 2010 Summary Judgment for the factually and legally non-existent corporation, Anita’s Resort Properties, Inc., in conspiracy with Plaintiffs Terry J. Cox, Anita L. Koop, and their attorneys, Kenneth Burch, Carl Haddard, Richard Morrison, et al., See Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019(193; Pure Oil Co. v. City of Northlake, 10 Ill. 2d 241, 245, 140 N.E. 2d 289 (1956); Hallberg v Goldblatt Bros., 363 Ill 25 (1936).

4) committed fraud upon the court by acting in manner inconsistent with due process of law and acting unconstitutionally in entering the purported orders and final judgments. See In re Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill, App. 3d 393(1962). For Skipper Koetter and Randall W. Hill’s conspiracy to commit fraud on the court, please refer to: WARNINGS TO RANDAL W. HILL, ESQ.: YOU VIOLATED TEXAS DISCIPLINARY RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT!Posted on September 24, 2013; RANDY HILL COMMITTED FRAUD ON THE COURT IN CONSPIRACY WITH JUDGE SKIPPER KOETTER, ANITA L. KOOP + TEXAS GANG Posted on May 17, 2013 & RANDALL W. HILL’S PERJURY & SUMMARY JUDGMENT OBTAINED BY FRAUD ON THE COURT IN CONSPIRACY WITH SKIPPER KOETTER Posted on May 18, 2013 for further information.

5) exceeded his statutory authority, unlawfully denied Chen’s 1st Amendment right to access the courts for redress of grievances, deprived Chen of “life, liberty, property” guaranteed by the 14^th Amendment to the US Constitution, disregarded the Open Courts Doctrine of Texas Constitution, and violated Chapter 13, Texas Civil Practices & Remedies Code by willfully, erroneously, and maliciously labeling him “a vexatious litigant”, charging him with filing “frivolous” lawsuits and prohibiting him from filing any new petitions in the State of Texas, among others; the ORDER OF DISMISSAL of June 15, 2014 was founded on the VOID Summary Judgment of November 30, 2010 without affording Chen an opportunity to be heard in a meaningful way. See Rosenstiel v. Rosenstiel, 278 F. Supp. 794 (S.D.N.Y. 1967).

6) committed fraud in the procurement of jurisdiction in conspiracy with Plaintiffs Terry J. Cox, Anita L. Koop, Anita’s Resort Properties, Inc., David Roberts, and their attorneys, Kenneth Burch, Carl Haddard, Richard Morrison, et al., See Fredman Brothers Furniture v. Dept. of Revenue, 109 Ill. 2d 202, 486 N.E. 2d 893 (1985). Plaintiffs having no standing, Judge Koetter had no subject matter jurisdiction. See II. Judge Koetter Engaged in an Act or Acts of Treason for Rendering the VOID Orders/Judgments  below.

7) immediately after the July 15, 2010 hearing, signed the purported Judicial Findings of Fact and Legal Conclusion drafted and prepared in advance by Plaintiffs’ three seasoned attorneys, Kenneth Burch, Carl Haddard, Richard Morrison, Assistant DA Shannon Salyer, et al. without changing a single word, without glancing at Chen’s pleadings filed on the record, and by giving away his bias, prejudice, discrimination, partiality and favoritism with his obvious body language. “It was patently unfair to the Defendant, who has not had “ample opportunity” to argue for or against the findings.” See In re Colony Square Co., 819 F.2d 272, 275 (11th Cir. 1987); see also In re Walker, 532 F.3d at 1311. (“When an interested party is permitted to draft a judicial order without response by or notice to the opposing side, the temptation to overreach and exaggerate is overwhelming.”) Id. The record shows that the hearing started at 9 a.m. and ended at about 10.00 a.m., that the void JUDICIAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSION OF LAW REGARDING DOCUMENTATION OR INSTRUMENT P[E]RPORTING TO CREATE AS L[EI]N OR CLAIM prepared by Plaintiffs’ attorneys in advance was filed at 10:07 a.m. with Judge Koetter’s signature without considering Chen’s challenges of, inter alia, jurisdiction filed on the record.

8) engaged in unlawful activity, particularly accepting $5,900.10 from one of the Plaintiffs, David Roberts and his law firm, Roberts, Roberts, Odefey & Witte, LLP. — Is the $5,900.10 to be regarded as a bribe, a reward or a campaign contribution or all of the above? Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 18b(b)(1) protects the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary by requiring a judge to recuse in any proceeding where “the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” “The standard is ‘whether an objective, fully informed lay observer would entertain significant doubt about the judge’s impartiality.’” In re Walker, 532 F.3d 1304, (11th Cir. 2008) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 144, 455(a) (judge’s “impartiality might be reasonably questioned) and Christo v. Padgett, 233 F.3d 1324, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000)). The judge’s intentions or motivations for engaging in the ex parte communications or acceptance of campaign contribution are irrelevant to the inquiry; rather, the inquiry is an objective one which asks whether the judge’s acceptance of $5,900.10 from the attorney and his law firm that are Plaintiffs in the proceedings before him would raise in the mind of a fully informed lay observer questions regarding his impartiality. The answer to that question here can only be “yes.” Furthermore, Judge Koetter was one of the defendants in Chen’s Section 1983 Civil Rights Action filed on June 4, 2012.

How much did the winners bribe to beat these poor guys with such meritorious claims like mine?

9) misinterpreted NOTICES OF LIS PENDENS and was ignorant of the 87+ Texas precedents, e.g., (a) A notice of lis pendens is privileged even if filed in connection with a suit not lawfully supporting the filing. See Prappas v. Meyerland Community Improvement Ass’n, 795 S.W.2d 794, 796 (Tex. App. – Houston [14^th Dist.] 1990, writ denied); (b) The lis pendens filing was absolutely privileged, even if there was not statutory basis for the filing. Id. See also Manders v. Manders, 897 F.Supp. 972, 976 (S.D. Tex. 1995); (c) Prappas also concluded that the absolute privilege is not lost if the notice of lis pendens fails to include all required statutory elements. See Id. At 798. (See AMENDED AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE BASED ON ABSOLUTE PRIVILEGE AND QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE OF LIS PENDENS FILING filed in Case 2010-CR-0234 & Case 2010-CR-0235 on August 31, 2010.) (EXHIBITS #5B 6B 7B 8B  EXCERPTS 9-95 in  PP 15-21 of VERIFIED MOTION TO VOID ORDER OF DISMISSAL filed on July 11, 2014 but returned by the Clerk in violation of Rule 145.) 

II. Judge Koetter Engaged in an Act or Acts of Treason for Rendering the VOID Orders/Judgments.

1. Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of  the United States, wars against that Constitution and engages in  violation of the Supreme Law of the Land. If a judge does not fully  comply with the Constitution, then his orders are void, In re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (1888), he is without jurisdiction, and he/she has  engaged in an act or acts of treason. U.S. v. Will; Cohens v. Virginia.

2. When a judge knows that he lacks jurisdiction, or acts in the face of clearly valid statutes expressly depriving him of jurisdiction, judicial immunity is lost. Rankin v. Howard, (1980) 633 F.2d 844, cert den. Zeller v. Rankin, 101 S.Ct. 2020, 451 U.S. 939, 68 L.Ed 2d 326.

Does it hurt? Is the price for taking bribes too high for you, your honor?  

Don’t worry, your honor! My rich uncle and his partners have retained two teams of top litigators, criminal and civil, to represent you!

To all the corrupt officers of the court:

When you are in orange jumpsuit like this one, you’ll need both criminal and civil defense lawyers! They don’t come cheap. Save some money for the rainy days!

*************************************************************************************

The first and greatest punishment of the sinner is the conscience of sin. — Lucius Annaeus Seneca

I just wonder if you have any conscience at all, my dear conspirators and co-conspirators! I am in fact grateful that your egregious misconduct and flagrant miscarriage of justice made it possible for me to ridicule and punish you all online to my heart’s content!  Especially you, Mr. Koetter! You have repeatedly made mockeries of justice by rendering six VOID Orders/Judgments in the clear absence of jurisdiction!

*************************************************************************************

TO BE CONTINUED.

Paul Chen

Please click: JUDGE JOHN D. RAINEY: WHY CHEN V. TERRY COX, ANITA KOOP & ANITA’S RESORT PROPERTIES, INC. TOOK 10.5 MONTHS WITHOUT A TRO OR HEARING WHILE Looper v. Morgan TOOK THE ATTORNEY ONE PHONE CALL TO HAVE YOU ISSUE A TRO? Posted on October 17, 2012. I just revised it with seven more eye-catching pictures for your reading pleasure!

ENJOY, HAVE FUN AND HAVE A GREAT DAY OR NIGHT WHEREVER YOU ARE!